4.7 Review

Examining lung cancer screening utilization with public-use data: Opportunities and challenges

期刊

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
卷 147, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2021.106503

关键词

Lung cancer screening; National datasets; Secondary analysis; Patient-provider communication; Review article

资金

  1. Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT) [RP170259, RP160674, RP190210]
  2. MD Anderson Cancer Center - National Cancer Institute [CA016672]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer is recommended for high-risk smokers meeting specific eligibility criteria, but shared decision-making consultation is required due to associated risks. National surveys currently do not fully assess adherence to current LCS guidelines.
Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography is recommended for high-risk smokers who meet specific eligibility criteria. Current guidelines suggest that eligible adults with a heavy smoking history will benefit from annual low dose computed tomography but due to several associated risks (e.g., false-positives, radiation exposure, overdiagnosis) a shared decision-making consultation is required by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and endorsed by the United States Preventive Services Task Force. In order to examine potential for tracking LCS uptake, adherence, and patient-provider communication at a national level, we reviewed four regularly publicly available national surveys (National Health Interview Survey [NHIS], Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System [BRFSS], National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey [NHANES], and Health Information National Trends Survey [HINTS]) to assess available data; an overview of 37 publications using these sources is also provided. The results show that none of the surveys include items that fully assess current LCS guidelines. Implications for future research?including the potential to examine factors associated with LCS uptake and patient-provider communication?are addressed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据